Civic Education
Unpacking the ‘Education’ in Civic Education
Abstract
Unpacking the ‘Education’ in Civic Education
In this paper, we explore civic education through an examination of two approaches to the introductory course in American government. Our goal is to identify how differences in pedagogical method affect student learning and attitude formation. We do this through a comparison of two equivalent groups of students; one group experiencing a standard text-lecture-test approach and the other having the additional experience of a three-week character-playing simulation of the congressional policy process. While we find that both groups of students make short-term gains on factual knowledge and both experience attitude shifts in our hoped for directions, the effects are greater in the standard lecture course. Our overall findings help clarify directions for further revision in both formats of the course.
The importance of civic education has been well-established. From the earliest political theorists, we see discussion of the importance of a well-informed citizenry for the health of a polity. While skeptical of the power of the people to self-govern, the framers of American democracy still argued that the ultimate power rested in the people, who would even have the right to overthrow government should it violate the “social contract” with those over whom it governed (as in the Declaration of Independence, where we see Jefferson’s thoughts so clearly influenced by Locke). Closer to modern times, much public opinion literature has engaged in discussions about Americans’ levels of political knowledge, and the consequences that flow from this (see, for just a very few prominent examples, Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960; Converse 1964; Delli Carpini and Keeter 1991, 1996; Graber 1994; Jennings 1996; Nie, Verba and Petrocik 1979).
To our minds, civic education is about preparing our students to be citizens in the American democracy. This involves
Abstract
Unpacking the ‘Education’ in Civic Education
In this paper, we explore civic education through an examination of two approaches to the introductory course in American government. Our goal is to identify how differences in pedagogical method affect student learning and attitude formation. We do this through a comparison of two equivalent groups of students; one group experiencing a standard text-lecture-test approach and the other having the additional experience of a three-week character-playing simulation of the congressional policy process. While we find that both groups of students make short-term gains on factual knowledge and both experience attitude shifts in our hoped for directions, the effects are greater in the standard lecture course. Our overall findings help clarify directions for further revision in both formats of the course.
The importance of civic education has been well-established. From the earliest political theorists, we see discussion of the importance of a well-informed citizenry for the health of a polity. While skeptical of the power of the people to self-govern, the framers of American democracy still argued that the ultimate power rested in the people, who would even have the right to overthrow government should it violate the “social contract” with those over whom it governed (as in the Declaration of Independence, where we see Jefferson’s thoughts so clearly influenced by Locke). Closer to modern times, much public opinion literature has engaged in discussions about Americans’ levels of political knowledge, and the consequences that flow from this (see, for just a very few prominent examples, Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960; Converse 1964; Delli Carpini and Keeter 1991, 1996; Graber 1994; Jennings 1996; Nie, Verba and Petrocik 1979).
To our minds, civic education is about preparing our students to be citizens in the American democracy. This involves
References: Arterton, F. Christopher. 1974. “The Impact of Watergate on Children’s Attitudes toward Political Authority.” Political Science Quarterly 89:269-288. Barnes, Fred Benjamin, Gerald and Michael J. Malbin (ed). 1992. Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington: CQ Press. Bernstein, Jeffrey L Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, J. F. 1987. Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin. Converse, Philip E Crile, George. 1975. “The Best Congressman.” Harper’s, January 1975, pages 60-66. Delli Carpini, Michael X Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Scott Keeter. 1991. “Stability and Change in the U.S. Public’s Knowledge of Politics.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55:583-612. Delli Carpini, Michael and Lee Sigelman Felder, Richard M., and Linda K. Silverman, 1988. “Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education 78:674-681. Felder, Richard M., and Barbara A <http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html>, accessed June 1, 2002. Fenno, Richard F., Jr Fiorina, Morris P. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Frantzich, Stephen E Guinier, Lani. 1993. “Second Proms and Second Primaries: The Limits of Majority Rule.” Penn Law Journal 28:14-17. Graber, Doris A Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hibbing, John R Hibbing, John R. and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holsti, Ole R Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education. 1984. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, Department of Education. Jennings, M Jennings, M. Kent. 1993. “Education and Political Development among Young Adults.” Politics and the Individual 3:1-24. Jennings, M Jennings, M. Kent and Richard G. Niemi. 1968. “The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to Child.” American Political Science Review 62:169-184. Kingdon, John W Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. “Why Are Congressional Committees Powerful?” American Political Science Review 81:929-935. Merelman, Richard M Nie, Norman H., Sidney Verba, and John R. Petrocik. 1979. The Changing American Voter, enlarged edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Niemi, Richard and Jane Junn Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan. Schlesinger, Joseph A Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81:85-104. Tedin, Kent L Tedin, Kent. 1980. “Assessing Peer and Parent Influence on Adolescent Political Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 24:136-154. Teixeira, Ruy A Verba, Sidney and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row. Wasserman, Gary Will, George F. 1992. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press